Here’s an interesting case from the Fourth Circuit, courtesy of fourthamendment.com:
Defendant’s actions when seen in a stopped car did not amount to suspicious circumstances. The officer’s learning that defendant was under investigation for drug trafficking did not lessen his Fourth Amendment rights, and it added nothing to the reasonable suspicion calculus. United States v. Foster, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3939 (4th Cir. March 2, 2011)[.]
More fallout from USS ENTGERPRISE
A former commanding officer of the USS Enterprise who faces possible punishment because of lewd videos shown to the crew has lost his job as head of a Singapore-based logistics group.
Rear Adm. Ron Horton, commander, Logistics Group, Western Pacific, was promptly relieved of command on Thursday by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet.
United States v. Zaruba.
The appellant has assigned three errors, but we need address only the first:
DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE FAILED TO REOPEN THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY AFTER EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT’S DIAGNOSIS OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AND BIPOLAR DISORDER WERE INTRODUCED DURING SENTENCING IN ORDER TO QUESTION APPELLANT AND TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL OF POSSIBLE MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL DEFENSES?
Here is the argument transcript in Bullcoming v. New Mexico.
Here is Professor Friedman’s initial thoughts.
Here is a DOD press release with more details of the new charges. Again they point out that it is going to be a non-capital referral recommendation.
ABC News reports:
The Army said Wednesday it has filed 22 additional charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Manning, the soldier suspected of providing classified government documents published by the ****** anti-secrecy group.
Army officials said the charges accuse Manning of using unauthorized software on government computers to extract classified information, illegally download it and transmit the data for public release by what the Army termed "the enemy."
CAAF’s Journal for 28 February:
No. 11-5003/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES. CCA 201000366. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT’S UNSWORN STATEMENT DURING PRESENTENCING RAISED THE “POSSIBLE DEFENSE” OF DURESS.
I’ve posted the link to Camreta argument today.
Another Scalia’ism
It takes two to tango[.] At p. 6.
Here courtesy of fourthamendment.com is a case which demonstrates how the police benefit from the benefit of doubt.
Trial court’s ruling denying motion to suppress was erroneously denied. While the trial court has the credibility call and great deference in making findings of fact at a suppression hearing, the surveillance video of the area of defendant’s detention at the suppression hearing clearly contradicted the officer’s testimony about where and how things happened, and it showed that the motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Thompson, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 241 (La. App. 2d Cir. February 23, 2011). (Emphasis added.)
The judge in this case appears to have believed the police officer, despite the video of the encounter which contradicts the police testimony.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
